Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Most people when they discuss theology or Catholic doctrine assume that hypothetical cases are explicit since this is the teaching of the contemporary magisterium. So they accept the Letter of the Holy Office as being magisterial and they also interpret Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.

This was how the Council Fathers reasoned and then the traditionalists Lefebvre, Hildebrand, Mattei and Michael Davis used this reasoning.

So when most people discuss theology or Catholic doctrine their premise is that there are known cases of the baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water.

They take this for granted since this is magisterial and the traditionalists,liberals and conservatives accept this.

Often when I speak to them it is hard for them to understand me. Since for me hypothetical cases are not explicit. So I can only accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and reject the Second Part.The second part would be irrational to accept.

I interpret Vatican Council II according to the first part of the Letter i.e traditional Feeneyism. It does not assume hypothetical cases were exceptions to the EENS. So when I look at Vatican Council II there are no hypothetical cases ( LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc) which are explicit for me.

When I read Vatican Council II it is different from the way others do it. In my mind I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), since I want to, and then I realize that there are no exceptions to EENS.

So when I talk about theology and Church doctrine it is difficult for Catholics to understand me. Since they have been conditioned to accept the irrational reasoning and they think that this was the reasoning in the Church for centuries. They even call this the Deposit of Faith.

So in our conversation, in what I write, our premises and conclusions are different.When I come to a discussion with a traditionalist or a liberal Catholic, my premise and conclusion is different.It is based on common knowledge( we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven) and common sense ( we cannot see invisible people).

Catholics, including those who have studied theology come to the discussion always thinking that there are exceptions to the dogma EENS. They are saying, indirectly, that there are known cases of people in Heaven who are there without the baptism of water. Or, that they know of people on earth,who they are sure will go to Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So they come to a discussion with an irrational premise and conclusion.

They have been conditioned to think like this by over some 70 plus years in the Catholic Church.

We see this conditioning in the irrational reasoning of Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augistine Di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay.1

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and traditionalists are in a fix. They cannot correct me and neither do they want to say that they were wrong all these years and have been interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational reasoning http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made_36.html

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II 1 and traditionalists are in a fix. They cannot correct me and neither do they want to say that they were wrong all these years and have been interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational reasoning.

The same group of traditionalists who criticize Medugorje based on doctrine have been making a major doctrinal error with respect to Vatican Council II.

I have shown with the public statements of Muller, Di Noia and Fellay how completely wrong they were about Vatican Council II but I have been saying the same thing for over six years and the traditionalist, read me, but do not comment.They do not want be accused of being Anti-Semitic with respect to Vatican Council II. They are afraid of being called fundamentalists.So they deny the Catholic Faith with their silence.

They criticize Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition and they are correct here. Even a lay Catholic with no training in liberal theology, which is now official, will realize that Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.Nothing special here.Roberto dei Mattei and Archbishop Lefebvre have written books on a subject which is not contested even by the liberals. The liberals and Masons go out of their way to say that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.

What the traditionalists and liberals are not saying is that without the irrational premise and conclusion used to interpret Vatican Council II, the Council is in perfect agreement with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So Archbishop Lefebvre had it wrong when he accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and then used the irrational reasoning of the Letter to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past. It was probably an innocent error. The magisterium did not clarify the issue for him.

Instead they excommunicated. Neither did the magisterium clarify that the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was a mistake. There were no known exceptions to his interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Instead they allowed , and still allow, the slander against Fr. Leonard Feeney to continue.

Now that it can be seen in three texts, made public,2 that the contemporary magisterium, and the SSPX, have interpreted Vatican Council II by wrongly assuming hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to the dogma, are they going to do anything about it ?

No.

Not for now.

Since what I have written here is not new.

They want to affirm Church doctrine the traditionalists say but they do not want to be considered Feeneyites. They want to keep their careers in religious life.

They cannot displease their bishop by saying hypothetical cases cannot be known exceptions to all needing to be card carrying members of the Church.

Even Bishop Schneider has no comment even after I have sent him these blog posts.He is not going to offend the Jewish Left.

Instead they condemn Medugorje. How can you expect the Franciscans at Medugorje to say that Our Lady affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , when the Franciscans there, the Magisterium in Rome and the traditionalists in the USA and Europe do not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma ? The popes would have closed down Medugorje 30-plus years ago and Our Lady would not have been able to have done her excellent conversion of millions of Catholics.

Traditionalists,liberals and Masons interpret Vatican Council II with the theology of Cushingism and do not want to be politically incorrect and say that Vatican Council II can also be interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism.

I have shown on the last blog post how Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay in public statements have confused hypothetical cases as being objective and with this confusion have concluded that there are 'practical exceptions' to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpretated over the centuries.

They have contradicted the Extraordinary magisterium ( ex cathedra) by rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which was defined by three Church Councils and called an 'infallible teaching' by Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949( First Part).They assume hypothetical cases are explicitly known to be exceptions to EENS.So they have changed the understanding of this dogma, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries. Cardinal Muller, like Pope Benedict, calls it ' a development'.

They have also contradicted Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism, that is,hypothetical cases are not explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma EENS.It does not contradict the 'strict interpretation ' of the dogma,as it was understood by Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay when they asssume hypothetical cases are explicit, they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.

Like the rest of the contemporary magisterium they interpret the Nicene Creed as saying 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water. They are the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance'. So for them, there is not one known baptism, which is visible and repeatable and which is the baptism of water, instead, there is more than one objective baptism.This change in the Nicene Creed for me, at least is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.

They use an irrational premise ( there are known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water/ hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire are visible, explicit, objective).With the irrational premise they reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion ( there are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS).-Lionel Andrades

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake : hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit

The archbishop who last year approved apparitions of Mary in the Filipino area known as Lipa to a Carmelite nun in the 1940s -- an approval that has now been "nullified" by a Vatican Congregation -- told Spirit Daily Monday (6/7/16) that he maintains belief in the apparitions, has a personal devotion to it, has had no direct communication with the Cardinal, Gerhard Muller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who nixed it, and may appeal directly to the Pope, whom he does not believe is aware of Cardinal Muller's action.

The archbishop, Ramon C. Arguelles of Lipa [left], had declared the apparitions "worthy of belief" on September 12, 2015, and stated that the events were indeed supernatural, strongly encouraging devotion to "Our Lady, Mediatrix of Grace," as she called herself there. As we reported at the time, "Unless overturned by Rome, the apparition is thus 'Church-approved.'"

That reversal occurred on December 11, 2015 -- though Archbishop Arguelles was not made aware of it until two weeks ago.

The archbishop says a bishop in the Philippines Conference of Bishops informed him on May 28 that the Congregation had nullified his approval and that he had received the official document on May 31 from the nation's papal nunciature in Manila. (We strictly abide by such determinations.)

Asked if he had yet responded to the surprising nullification, the archbishop said, "No, because I was sent nothing directly," but added he may attempt to take the issue up with the Holy Father "if I can reach him." The Vatican document (see below) argued that a contentious negative ruling made in 1951 against the apparitions held sway because it was "confirmed" by the Holy Father, at the time was Pius XII.

For more than half a century now, the matter has been the focus of terrific dispute, with four of the six bishops involved with the original negative document in 1951 later recanting (and despite what they signed, expressing belief in the apparitions) and Cardinal Santos of Manila authorizing promulgation of the devotion. Arguelles says two Filipino bishops outright ignored the commission's negative ruling, allowing faithful to continue visiting the shrine.

The alleged repression in the 1950s was also orchestrated by the papal nuncio in Manila, at whose direction the committee of Filipino bishops had been convened, hastily concluding that the Lipa events were not of a supernatural nature, their own verdict signed without interviewing the visionary, who was sequestered at a different convent and forbidden, as were the other nuns, to speak of the happenings, which began in 1948. While the committee of bishops appeared unanimous in their conclusion that Lipa was fraudulent, there were the several who confessed before they died that they too had been coerced, signing the negative "findings" only under threat of excommunication.

The dissension included claims that diaries kept by the seer-nun, Sister Teresita Castillo, and boxes of other material were ordered burned by those who opposed the apparition and that allegedly miraculous rose petals were discarded. A statue representing the Virgin of Lipa (though ordered to be destroyed) was hidden instead. A bishop who had previously approved of Lipa (after a personal encounter with the rose petals) was unceremoniously stripped of his administrative powers (ostensibly for "poor accounting practices"), and his equally favorable auxiliary bishop removed and banished to a different diocese.

It was further alleged but never proved that Church interrogators tried to intimidate the alleged visionary into signing a false confession, a statement saying the apparitions were a fabrication intended to bring her personal attention, and when the befuddled young postulant found the strength to refuse, she was confronted by an angry psychologist/priest who made motions as if ready to throw an ashtray at her.

Meanwhile the prioress of the Carmel convent there, Mother Mary Cecilia of Jesus, who supported the apparitions [left], was transferred to another convent and given the role of a scullery maid. "I told them that four bishops quoted [in the 1951 committee] had made notarized declarations that they believed in manifestation of Lipa," argues Archbishop Arguelles. "I had asked for documents on the investigation but several of the six were not bishops before 1950. Four died believing and even the Cardinal, in 1963 -- twelve years after ban -- had signed a document that allowed printing and spread [of the devotion], so that means he also believed. That's why I am now asking how it can really said that the declaration of 1951 could be the official stand of the Holy See. The four bishops encouraged support."

Still, the current Vatican ruling holds sway and must be obeyed. The Congregation is the Vatican body with authority over mystical claims. Its determinations can be reversed only by the Holy Father, who has been silent on the issue.

There have long been questions about Lipa. While the original rose petals that were said to have materialized in the air there and fallen to the ground, with holy images on them, appeared inexplicable, some have raised skepticism of many others who in the apparition's wake claimed the same phenomenon. Moreover. Sister Teresita's experiences began not with the Virgin but with an attack by what apparently was an evil force that banged on her door and carried the smell of sulfur.

Those who support such happenings argue that the devil often attacks when he knows the Blessed Mother is about to appear, in an attempt to dilute it or divert attention. On the other side are those who fret that a deceiving spirit counterfeits Mary.

Archbishop Arguelles, who has visited Lipa since childhood, and says he has himself seen miracles occur there and is skeptical that Pius XII was involved in the original Lipa ruling. "I don't think that in 1951, Pope Pius XII was even thinking of what was happening in such a small country as the Philippines with so many things were happening in the world," he argues, adding that the Pope was favorable toward such mysticism. "He approved an apparition in 1954 in Italy and also Our Lady of All Nations was also approved by Pius XII, as was a weeping statue and in Syracuse [Sicily]," he told Spirit Daily in a lengthy interview.

He also argues that there was an approval of Lipa in 1992, when the late Archbishop Mariano Gaviola lifted the ban enforced forty years earlier by the then Lipa Apostolic Administrator Bishop Rufino Santos. "I was just repeating and following the decree of 1992," Arguelles maintains.

In 2010, however -- to make matters still more convoluted -- the Vatican "affirmed" that the apparitions were "not supernatural": that unusual forces had been "excluded. This was under Benedict XVI.

The Lipa archbishop has conceded that the latest ruling by Cardinal Muller [left], who also has indicated opposition to Medjugorje, holds sway and as a matter of "obedience" released what he was given by the nuncio on May 31. "I did not respond and I have no intention," he says. "The document was not addressed to me but was meant for me and implied I was disobedient and I am not disobedient. I think there is a lot of antagonism to whatever is Marian and I am very hurt by that. I don't know if the Holy Father Pope Francis knows about this. I think this is completely contrary to what he believes."

When asked if he would halt people from visiting the shrine, Archbishop Arguelles said, "No, no not at all. You don't stop people from believing and loving the Blessed Mother. No, no, no. They can tell me to keep silence, but they cannot force me to say it's not true, as one bishop of Lipa once said."

"I don't think Pope Francis knows what's going on," says Arguelles. "I don't think he knows about the letter." Arguelles said he may attempt at contact the Holy Father, "but I don't know if I can reach him, especially if some people around him know I am approaching him. I don't know if I'm capable of getting to him." He said he did give Pope Francis a Rosary from the site's devotion, known as Our Lady Mary Mediatrix of All Grace, when the Holy Father visited the Philippines last year. "This is a place of our continual prayer for you," he told the Supreme Pontiff just before the Pope left Manila to return home.

"Things are still happening there, at Lipa, things that be can't be explained and the Blessed Mother has plans for us," he claims.

Asked why he thinks it took so long for Muller's document to reach him, the archbishop replied, "Your guess is as good as mine. It's strange. There are so many strange things in the whole thing, so I believe even more that Lipa phenomena are true. There are too many testimonies. This is also my experience. I sometimes pray hard for the Church in Europe." He laments "all these beautiful things that [he believes] Heaven is doing" in the area of Lipa.

Arguelles, a bishop since 1994, says he prayed at Lipa as a seminarian and young priest "spent solitude" there, and then "even as bishop -- I pray in Carmel. It's part of my life. And I am thinking I became archbishop of this place for a reason."

We naturally will abide strictly to the Vatican's recent declaration on the apparitions.

Over 600 cases of healings in Medjugorje have been recorded and are kept in the Information center “Mir,” run by the Franciscans of the St. James parish in Medjugorje, along with all the given documentation, which is then forwarded to medical and theological examiners.

Among the hundreds of cases, one that definitely stands out is of Arthur Boyle, an American from Hingham, near Boston. He was diagnosed with kidney cancer, which spread to his lungs. Doctors sadly predicted a speedy death.

“I was diagnosed with cancer in 1999. They removed my kidney. I thought the operation took care of everything, but eight months later during a follow-up exam, doctors found three tumors in my right lung. They gave me a less than a 5% chance that I would survive. Radiation and chemotherapy was out of the question. Only an operation to remove my right lung was possible. At that time, my best friend asked me if I’d heard of Medjugorje,” recollects Arthur Boyle.

ABC News | ABC Sports News“I remembered then how years back my daughter, while studying medicine, had brought me a book from Medjugorje, titled ‘The Messages of Medjugorje.’ My wife read me the messages, but I didn’t pay much attention to it. However, after my friend asked me about Medjugorje, I went home and asked my wife: ‘What is this Medjugorje? What did you tell me about Medjugorje?’ She told me all that she knew about that place of prayer, love, peace, and healing.”One week later in September of 2000, Arthur Boyle, emotionally crushed by his progressing illness, traveled to Medjugorje. At first, he felt a great power after Confession, then he had an impressive meeting with the visionary, Vicka and father Jozo Zovko at Široki Brijeg, not far from Medjugorje. That gave him the strength to attempt climbing up Cross Mountain.“It was raining. As I was climbing, I felt tired. I had a strong pain in my legs, and I felt as if everything was getting worse. My chest hurt like never before, but we climbed to the top. We were the only three adult men on Cross Mountain. I prayed with all my heart and soul for God to forgive me and to help me to get well. We cried as we prayed. After that, I called my wife on my cell phone, because my friends and I had a feeling that something strange happened to me up on Cross Mountain. She then told me that she scheduled an operation to remove my right lung four days after my return from Medjugorje. I asked her if she could ask the doctors to examine me one more time before I went into surgery. I also asked her to organize everything, if it was possible, when I got back to America.Shortly after that, the doctor’s secretary called me and said: “Mr. Boyle, we know that you are in Medjugorje, and we know why. That is really great, but you have cancer, and it’s not going to go away all by itself, believe me. I assure you that you need this operation.” Arthur Boyle told his story.He arrived home in America convinced that he was healed. “God healed me. I am healed in my heart. I am spiritually healed. All that was rotten and unhealthy in me, I got rid of in Confession in Medjugorje.” he repeated.He then went to his doctor who showed him the old and new CAT scans. “He [the doctor] told me to wait outside for five minutes, then he called me into his office. He was scratching his beard, while looking stunned. He concluded that the cancer had just disappeared, that it was gone. We called all the attending doctors who had to operate on me and told them about it. Astonished, they all accepted the fact that I was cured,” described Arthur Boyle. That day, September 14, 2000, instead of going into surgery to remove his right lung, he went to play golf.See Arthur P. Boyle’s new book: Six Months to Live: Three Guys on the Ultimate Quest for a Miraclehttp://www.medjugorjemiracles.com/2011/01/man-is-completely-healed-of-terminal-cancer-in-medjugorje/Hingham father writes about miracle pilgrimage (Boston Globe)https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/south/2014/08/09/hingham-father-writes-about-miracle-pilgrimage-that-saved-him-from-metastatic-kidney-cancer/dwpSSOzZFqywaG3SkL9o3J/story.htmlVideo : Arthur Boyle Cancer Story at St. Agatha Parish (Youtube) https://youtu.be/lZktbnvBFw0

That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.

But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason.We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience.- Cardinal Gerhard Muller (10/02/2012 ). Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress', National Catholic Registerhttp://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz3pwkg3Mur

I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.' -Archbishop Augustine di Noia ( 07/01/2012 ), Archbishop Di Noia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X, National Catholic Register.

___________________________

The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)

Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949. -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82